Catherine Mendez v. County of Riverside

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 16, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-00452
StatusUnknown

This text of Catherine Mendez v. County of Riverside (Catherine Mendez v. County of Riverside) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Catherine Mendez v. County of Riverside, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 CATHERINE MENDEZ, et al. Case No. 5:22-cv-00452 AB (RAO) Plaintiff, 12 v. PROPOSED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER1

14 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al.

Defendant. 15 16

17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, or 19 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 20 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 21 Accordingly, Defendants petition the Court to enter the following Proposed 22 Protective Order. Defendants acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 23 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 24 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 25 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 26 // 27 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve confidential personnel records of California 3 peace officers for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 4 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential 5 materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential personnel 6 information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 7 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 8 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 9 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 10 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 11 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 12 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 13 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 14 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 15 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 16 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 17 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 18 should not be part of the public record of this case. 19 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 20 Defendants further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 21 Proposed Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 22 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 23 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 24 to file material under seal. 25 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 26 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 27 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 1 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 2 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 3 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 4 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 5 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 6 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 7 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 8 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 9 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 11 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 12 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 13 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 14 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 15 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 16 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 17 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 18 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 19 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 20 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 21 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 22 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 23 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 24 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 25 2. DEFINITIONS 26 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 27 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 2 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 3 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 4 the Good Cause Statement. 5 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 6 their support staff). 7 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 8 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 9 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 11 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 12 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 13 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 14 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 15 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 16 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 17 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 18 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 19 counsel. 20 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 21 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 22 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 23 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 24 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 25 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 26 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 27 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 1 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this Action. 3 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 4 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 5 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 6 and their employees and subcontractors. 7 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 8 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 10 Material from a Producing Party. 11 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Catherine Mendez v. County of Riverside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catherine-mendez-v-county-of-riverside-cacd-2023.